18
Additionally, there are tools for partnership agreements involving the use of NASA owned patents
and/or computer soware. NASA provides notice of the availability of technologies suitable for
transfer and for opportunities for exclusive licensing. Such tools include NASA’s Technology Transfer
Portal, http://www.technology.nasa.gov. In addition, all center Twitter accounts have been consoli-
dated into one: @NASAsolutions. is account, along with the @NASASpino account, is updated
multiple times weekly. Further, new Tech Transfer promotions are announced in coordination with
the Agency Social Media team, and NASA’s Technology Transfer YouTube channel houses all market-
ing videos. For agreements associated with exclusive patent license agreements with the partner,
NASA complies with the provisions of 35 U.S.C. sec. 209(e) regarding the providing of public notice
in the Federal Register of NASA’s intent to enter into such exclusive license.
FAQs
Q: Are there any guidelines for minimum posting time for notices?
A: Generally, a minimum of 30 days is appropriate, but some situations might warrant more or less time. Consult with your Ofce of Chief/General Counsel
to ensure that the time period specied appropriately meets the intent of the transparency requirements in the NTAA and Agency guidance. Some Centers
have adopted the practice of posting Notices of Availability to ensure that potential partners have notice of partnership opportunities, which should generally
be sufcient. The Partnerships Ofce can support discussions among Centers on best practices and lessons learned to ensure the efcacy of Notices of
Availability.
Q: When is a partnership arrangement considered to be exclusive?
A: For most proposed activities, it should be clear whether the opportunity would constitute an exclusive or essentially exclusive arrangement partners
should have equitable access to NASA resources and facilities. Therefore, NASA’s arrangement with one partner shouldn’t preclude the Agency from
entering into a similar arrangement with a different partner. Such limitations regarding access to NASA’s resources and facilities may result from insufcient
space, limited availability of requisite expertise, conicting interests between partners, or even a desire to limit NASA’s investment by working with only one
or a few partners. Under such circumstances, for reasons of fairness and transparency, NASA should compete the opportunity before selecting a specic
partner.
On the other hand, not all facilities can be used at the same time by multiple partners. There will likely be scheduling conicts because many of NASA’s
facilities are in regular use. These circumstances necessitate NASA making choices between potential partners on a recurring basis. In deciding if the
resolution of a scheduling conict rises to the level of creating an exclusive or essentially exclusive arrangement, look to the following:
1. if the scheduling is administered in a fair manner so that all partners have equal opportunity,
2. if the duration of the conict is short,
3. if future opportunities will exist in a reasonable timeframe, and
4. if the nature of the commercial benet conferred on a Partner is not disproportionate to what others may obtain in the future.
If the four considerations are answered afrmatively, the scheduling conict would likely result in an opportunity being considered non-exclusive and would
not need to be competed. Where the answer to one or more of the four considerations is no — there is no fair scheduling process in place, the duration of
the conict is not short, future opportunities are very limited, or the commercial benet is exceptional, the opportunity should be competed consistent with
this guidance.
Q: Should I treat “essentially exclusive” agreements the same as exclusive agreements for purposes of fairness, transparency, and the use of competitive
procedures?
A: Yes, unless there is a compelling reason to treat them otherwise.
Q: How should I conduct a competition?
A: Depending on your goal, different mechanisms may be most appropriate. A Notice of Availability (NOA) is optimal in situations where NASA wants to
inform the public of the potential for using a NASA asset or capability. Where NASA would benet from knowing more about how a NASA asset or capability
could best be utilized by a partner, a Request for Information (RFI) might be a better choice because it provides non-NASA entities the opportunity to explain
their ideas to NASA. An Announcement for Proposals or partnership Opportunity (AFP) is issued where NASA has already determined the how, what, where,
and why of the partnership relationship sought, and seeks to make a partner selection through notication of a competition.
Q: Where should the competition documents be posted?
A: All agreement announcements, RFIs, and competitions must be published in the Federal Business Opportunities (FedBizOpps) so that there is consis-
tency of practice across the Agency. In addition, other public sites are available which may provide NASA the opportunity to reach a broader audience, or a
more specialized commercial sector. Postings can be published on multiple sites, at the Agency’s discretion. A list of public notice sites is included in this
section above.
Q: How many days should I post information/leave an RFI or a competition open?
A: A good rule of thumb is 30 days. However, particular circumstances may justify a shorter or longer period. In deciding what makes sense, ensure the
opportunity provides potential partners an adequate time to review and respond. Also, how large an audience are you hoping to reach? Provide sufcient
time for the opportunity to become widely known in situations where NASA may be unaware of who the stakeholders are for a particular opportunity. You
could also choose to post an opportunity for a long period of time, keeping the response date open for even a year or more, where there are multiple oppor-
tunities available. In this way, NASA remains aware of emerging commercial interests without needing to issue a competition for each separate opportunity.